If Alexander the Great had conquered Arabia, could we possibly

File: 1481408941284.jpg (9KB, 208x206px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 208x206px

Sure. But what's wrong with Islam that Christianity hasn't already brought to Europe?

>>2273582
I mean could we have avoided Arab imperialism in the name of Jihad.

The circumstances leading to Muhammad's parents meeting and fucking at the precise moment to ensure his conception and birth would have never happened, even if the peninsula revolted immediately after Alexander's death, so yes.

Alexander didn't care about the religion of his generals

>>2273579

Alexander was pro-miscegenation and his long term goal was to create a multicultural empire

watch /pol/ get mad

>>2273579
Considering Islam was influenced by Christianity i don't think Alexander conquering sad would change anything in that regard.

>>2273588
A fair point sir. That said, the arabs going on the warpath was probably inevitable given that all the other empires that held them in check were busy warring with each other to the point of exhaustion.

>>2273917
Not influenced, Muhhammad was a Judeo-Christian warlord.

>>2273579
I see no reason why that would be the case. However, if the romans destroyed the jews instead of exiling them from their homeland after their wars with them then islam and christianity would never have been created.

>>2273588
If anyone else had united the arab tribes, they too would have went on the warpath somewhere.
That's what empires do.

>>2273654
this. even the slightest change, like some peasant shitting near a rock and not near a tree can bring unimaginable alterations in history

>>2273917
*conquering sand

>>2273582
Brought turk roaches to europe

How important was the timing of Mohammad's birth and adventures for the spread of Islam overall? It seems to me they got pretty lucky in general considering what was going on in the rest of the west/asia at the time.

>>2273967
Prove it mathematically and I'll believe you.

>>2275347

>they got pretty lucky in general

a merchant and some of his neighbors, relatives and friends turned out to be some of the most effective politicians and generals in history

either they were supremely lucky or things were actually so bad they chronically underachieved and had they been actual professionals the muslims would have done vastly better

>>2275369
I dunno, they may have just been good. They did BTFO everything up to Byzantium and France. Hell, they even made it to Italy.

>>2273579
A thousand fucking years later?

>>2273579
I copypastad a post from one anon (written years ago) and it nicely sums up why arabs were able to prevail:

(1\2)
There are several reasons, all summing up to the conclusion that Islamic victory was not only easy to expect, but also pretty much inevitable.

First of all, Persia and Byzantium were strong only on paper. Both were devastated after decades of warfare. The long Persian-Byzantine war was unlike anything seen before. It was probably the first total war in modern sense, which was decided not on the battlefield, but through attrition. Byzantium pulled through and won, but the victory was Pyrrhic. Both saw main centers of their economies destroyed and central governments effectively collapsed. Both struggled with what we call today 'lost generations' - crippling lack of able bodied males who perished in the war with devastating effect to the economy, long term demographics and ability to recreate workable armies. Because to create armies you need not only men - you need also money, officers, veterans, training programmes. To make matter worse both powers were heavily indebted which further reduced ability to hire mercenary armies to plug the holes made by the lack of local recruits. Therefore armies that faced Muslims weren't actually armies - they were rag tag gatherings of untrained militias often children and old men, supplemented by small bodies of mercenaries, often underpaid and eager to desert.

Which bring us to the second thing - the war shattered the fragile political landscape of the Arabian peninsula. Previously, the region was pacified by a system of subsidized client chiefdoms. In essence, both Persia and Byzantium paid off local princelings who in turn kept their brethren in line. Everyone was happy. Both empires had peace on their borders, Arab chiefs had easy monies which also to some extent benefited average Arabs and alleviated social tensions there thus pacifying the tribesmen. The Byzantine-Persian war changed that.

>>2275436
(2\2)
Seeking money, both empires stopped subsidies which upturned the social order in the Arabian peninsula. Old tribal and state structure quickly collapsed, impoverishing vast number of Arabian tribesmen. In short this left a great number of young people without means to support and no old societal structure to channel their energy. This is the environment in which Islam appears.

It also must be noted that Muslims had extreme luck of having of of the greatest commanders in history, by which I mean Khalid ibn Wallid.

Additionally, the long Byzantine-Persian war shattered the religious and political unity of the Mediterranean. For example parts of Syria were under Persian occupation for more than 20 years. This means that an entire generation grew up in many places without having been subjected by their nominal governments. This environment encouraged the establishment of local authorities and severing the mental link with the state. Therefore, some Syrians for example could see the return of the Byzantine rule as another foreign rule. It's not therefore that hard to understand why they weren't fighting to their death for the Emperor when the Muslims arrived.

Finally, the regions directly bordering the Arab Peninsula, namely Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia were relatively untouched by the war and quite prosperous. Therefore once the Muslims gained foothold there, they were at the advantage comparing to Byzantium and Persia, who were left with resources from much more devastated regions.